Who pays and who benefits? How different models of shared responsibilities between formal and informal carers influence projections of costs of dementia management

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The few studies that have attempted to estimate the future cost of caring for people with dementia in Australia are typically based on total prevalence and the cost per patient over the average duration of illness. However, costs associated with dementia care also vary according to the length of the disease, severity of symptoms and type of care provided. This study aimed to determine more accurately the future costs of dementia management by taking these factors into consideration.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The current study estimated the prevalence of dementia in Australia (2010-2040). Data from a variety of sources was recalculated to distribute this prevalence according to the location (home/institution), care requirements (informal/formal), and dementia severity. The cost of care was attributed to redistributed prevalences and used in prediction of future costs of dementia.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our computer modeling indicates that the ratio between the prevalence of people with mild/moderate/severe dementia will change over the three decades from 2010 to 2040 from 50/30/20 to 44/32/24.</p> <p>Taking into account the severity of symptoms, location of care and cost of care per hour, the current study estimates that the informal cost of care in 2010 is AU$3.2 billion and formal care at AU$5.0 billion per annum. By 2040 informal care is estimated to cost AU$11.6 billion and formal care$AU16.7 billion per annum. Interventions to slow disease progression will result in relative savings of 5% (AU$1.5 billion) per annum and interventions to delay disease onset will result in relative savings of 14$4 billion) of the cost per annum.</p> <p>With no intervention, the projected combined annual cost of formal and informal care for a person with dementia in 2040 will be around AU$38,000 (in 2010 dollars). An intervention to delay progression by 2 years will see this reduced to AU$35,000.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings highlight the need to account for more than total prevalence when estimating the costs of dementia care. While the absolute values of cost of care estimates are subject to the validity and reliability of currently available data, dynamic systems modeling allows for future trends to be estimated.</p

Need-driven dementia-compromised behavior: An alternative view of disruptive behavior

The disruptive behavior of persons with dementia is a problem of considerable clinical interest and growing scientific concern. This paper offers a view of these behaviors as expressions of unmet needs or goals and provides a comprehensive conceptual framework to guide further research and clinical practice. Empiricalfindings and clinical impressions related to wandering, vocalizations and aggression to support and illustrate the framework are presentedPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66887/2/10.1177_153331759601100603.pd

Surveillance Technology in Dementia Care: Implicit Assumptions and Unresolved Tensions

This paper examines the concept of “Surveillance Technology [ST]” as it is used in ageing and dementia research but which suffers from poor definition. We attempt to clarify this imprecision by contextualizing a brief history of the development of ST and provide a summary of the research in this area. We contrast this with the responses provided by a public and patient involvement group of people living with a dementia diagnosis, or experience of supporting people with dementia. ST operates in multiple interacting ways, all of which need to be taken into account in research, public and policy debate. As a technology it is often seen as a way of assisting individuals and therefore classified as an Assistive Technology [AT]. However, the meaning of ST used in dementia care has pragmatic implications beyond the meeting of the needs for “safety and independence”; ideas which is often used to justify its use. We argue that there is need to interrogate the terms “Surveillance” and “Technology” more carefully if ST is to be considered as empowering for people with dementia. This tension is brought out in the accounts present in a group discussion on ST and its use. This paper argues that there needs to be an acknowledgement that the purposes of such technologies need to be regularly reviewed in order for society to keep up with the rapidly changing pace of technology and the changing needs of users

Discomfort and agitation in older adults with dementia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A majority of patients with dementia present behavioral and psychological symptoms, such as agitation, which may increase their suffering, be difficult to manage by caregivers, and precipitate institutionalization. Although internal factors, such as discomfort, may be associated with agitation in patients with dementia, little research has examined this question. The goal of this study is to document the relationship between discomfort and agitation (including agitation subtypes) in older adults suffering from dementia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This correlational study used a cross-sectional design. Registered nurses (RNs) provided data on forty-nine residents from three long-term facilities. Discomfort, agitation, level of disability in performing activities of daily living (ADL), and severity of dementia were measured by RNs who were well acquainted with the residents, using the Discomfort Scale for patients with Dementia of the Alzheimer Type, the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, the ADL subscale of the Functional Autonomy Measurement System, and the Functional Assessment Staging, respectively. RNs were given two weeks to complete and return all scales (i.e., the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory was completed at the end of the two weeks and all other scales were answered during this period). Other descriptive variables were obtained from the residents' medical file or care plan.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Hierarchical multiple regression analyses controlling for residents' characteristics (sex, severity of dementia, and disability) show that discomfort explains a significant share of the variance in overall agitation (28%, <it>p </it>< 0.001), non aggressive physical behavior (18%, <it>p </it>< 0.01) and verbally agitated behavior (30%, <it>p </it>< 0.001). No significant relationship is observed between discomfort and aggressive behavior but the power to detect this specific relationship was low.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings provide further evidence of the association between discomfort and agitation in persons with dementia and reveal that this association is particularly strong for verbally agitated behavior and non aggressive physical behavior.</p

The implementation of the serial trial intervention for pain and challenging behaviour in advanced dementia patients (STA OP!): a clustered randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pain (physical discomfort) and challenging behaviour are highly prevalent in nursing home residents with dementia: at any given time 45-80% of nursing home residents are in pain and up to 80% have challenging behaviour. In the USA Christine Kovach developed the serial trial intervention (STI) and established that this protocol leads to less discomfort and fewer behavioural symptoms in moderate to severe dementia patients. The present study will provide insight into the effects of implementation of the Dutch version of the STI-protocol (STA OP!) in comparison with a control intervention, not only on behavioural symptoms, but also on pain, depression, and quality of life. This article outlines the study protocol.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The study is a cluster randomized controlled trial in 168 older people (aged >65 years) with mild or moderate dementia living in nursing homes. The clusters, Dutch nursing homes, are randomly assigned to either the intervention condition (training and implementation of the STA OP!-protocol) or the control condition (general training focusing on challenging behaviour and pain, but without the step-wise approach). Measurements take place at baseline, after 3 months (end of the STA OP! training period) and after 6 months.</p> <p>Primary outcome measures are symptoms of challenging behaviour (measured with the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home version (NPI-NH)), and pain (measure with the Dutch version of the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors (PACSLAC-D) and the Minimum Data Set of the Resident Assessment Instrument (MDS-RAI) pain scale). Secondary outcome measures include symptoms of depression (Cornell and MDS-RAI depression scale), Quality of Live (Qualidem), changes in prescriptions of analgesics and psychotropic drugs, and the use of non-pharmacological comfort interventions (e.g. snoezelen, reminiscence therapy).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The transfer from the American design to the Dutch design involved several changes due to the different organisation of healthcare systems. Specific strengths and limitations of the study are discussed.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1967">NTR1967</a></p